Month: August 2024

After President Joseph Biden retrieved his hat from the ring and decided not to run for a second term, Vice President Kamala Harris, now the candidate,  selected her running mate – Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. CNN reports that “[i]n a remarkable two-week period, Walz ascended from a third-tier candidate to a final contender in the view of Harris and her vetting team. He was propelled by support from across the Democratic Party, progressive and moderate groups alike.” 

Of course, such a quick vetting period could miss certain liabilities in a Walz candidacy.  For instance, according to Breitbart, Walz “has listed on his official biography a higher military rank than the one he ultimately retired with, drawing criticism from some veterans and accusations of stolen valor. Walz served in the Minnesota Army National Guard and retired at the rank of master sergeant, or an E-8. However, on his official website bio, he lists a higher rank that he served at for a short period that ultimately was rescinded, as he did not complete all the requirements to serve at that rank. However, his bio implies that he retired at the rank of command sergeant major, or an E-9.” 

More disturbing are the statements reported by Breitbart which are made by  retired Army Command Sergeant Majors Thomas Behrends and Paul Herr, both of whom served with Walz.  In a letter co-authored by the two, they write that “[i]n early 2005, a warning order was issued to the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion, which included the position [Walz] was serving in, to prepare to be mobilized for active duty for a deployment to Iraq. On May 16th, 2005 [Walz] quit, leaving the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion and its Soldiers hanging; without its senior Non-Commissioned Officer, as the battalion prepared for war. His excuse to other leaders was that he needed to retire in order to run for congress.” 

This allegation is far more serious than the issue of Stolen Valor. According to Sergeant Major Behrends  “'[a]s soon as the shots were fired in Iraq, [Walz] turned and ran the other way and hung his hat up and quit’…Behrends, [who] replaced Walz on the deployment to Iraq after he quit,” also said, “The public needs to know how pathetic his leadership was as a National Guardsman…He abandoned us. What the hell kind of leader does that?”

Indeed.  Just what kind of a leader is Tim Walz?

Perhaps the best way to determine the man’s qualifications to be Vice President is to review his record as Governor of Minnesota.  First elected in 2018, Walz was in his first term when petty thief George Floyd met his demise while being placed under arrest by Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin.

As the riots that followed the death of Floyd are described by left leaning Vox, “[a]t least two people died during the violence in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, more than 600 arrests were made in the initial days of unrest, and the whole span of rioting and law enforcement response made it one of the most costly and destructive periods of civil unrest in US history. Minneapolis and Saint Paul sustained hundreds of millions of dollars in damage during those riots, and hundreds of buildings were heavily damaged.”  While “Walz wasn’t the main authority in charge of responding to the unrest – that was the task of local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey…[t]he main line of criticism of Walz’s response to the…riots hinges on the time it took for him to deploy the Minnesota National Guard and coordinate with other state and local officials in restoring order.” 

According to Vox, it took Walz several days to authorize the use of the National Guard to control the increasingly violent protests. “Walz…did not sign an executive order authorizing National Guard deployments until…much of the city had shut down, businesses were closed and boarded up to prevent looting, and buildings were smoldering after overnight arsons. [The] night [before Walz sent in the National Guard] saw some of the worst rioting, violence, and arson, as well as one of the indelible scenes of the protests: the breach and burning of the Minneapolis police’s Third Precinct police station. A few hundred National Guard and Minnesota State Patrol officers had been deployed to Minneapolis by then, but were charged with protecting federal buildings and downtown areas of the city, as well as escorting first responders, instead of immediately going to hot spots.”

Even Walz knew his delay in sending in troops was a mistake. “At a press conference…Walz would take responsibility for the state patrol’s mishandling of the [situation], saying, ‘There is absolutely no reason something like this should happen. Calls [for assistance] were made immediately … I failed you last night in that.’”

So far, Tim Walz’ record reveals a leader who failed to act decisively, except when it came to avoiding a call to arms on behalf of his country.  But for those concerned with whether or not a candidate for Vice President of the United States will be respectful of the civil liberties of the American people, the worst aspects of Governor Walz’ history are cause for much trepidation on this score.

In my book, Not Wasting a Crisis, The Lawless Biden Administration,   we describe the extreme responses of mostly-Democrat local and state officials to the Covid-19 pandemic. “[W]e discussed multiple violations of the Constitutional Rights of US citizens and residents by state and local authorities, all under the guise of guarding the health and welfare of their residents…too many state and local governments did not know where the powers of the state end and the rights of the individual begin.  Various ‘stay at home’ orders were promulgated, along with orders to close businesses and churches as ‘nonessential entities,’ as we discussed at length…”

In addition to being governor during the George Floyd riots, Tim Walz was also in charge of Minnesota during the pandemic, and as governor, Walz showed no respect for the freedoms and the basic civil rights of the residents of his state.

In March of 2020, Walz issued a series of Executive Orders which he describes in Emergency Executive Order 20-20; “On March 13, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-01 and declared a peacetime emergency because this pandemic…threatens the lives of Minnesotans, and local resources are inadequate to address the threat. On March 15, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-02 ordering the temporary closure of public schools. On March 16, 2020, I issued Executive Order 20-04 ordering the closure of bars, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation.” 

He then went on to order that “[b]eginning on Friday, March 27, 2020 at 11:59 pm through Friday, April 10, 2020 at 5:00 pm, all persons currently living within the State of Minnesota are ordered to stay at home or in their place of residence except to engage in the Activities and Critical Sector work set forth below…[a]llowed activities and work performed in the above Critical Sectors should, to the maximum extent possible, be conducted in a manner that adheres to Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Standards and the Minnesota Department of Health and CDC Guidelines related to COVID-19, including social distancing and hygiene…a person who willfully violates this Executive Order is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days.”

These orders, originally intended as temporary measures to “stop the spread,” turned into years of lock downs, mask mandates and other restrictions placed on the freedoms and civil rights of Minnesotans.  As late as May of 2021, in Executive Order 21-22, Walz continued to extend his “Emergency” Orders from March of 2020. “Even as we end public health restrictions across our State, the need for emergency response remains…the pandemic is not over and our work to protect our communities continues…I have determined that the COVID-19 pandemic…continues to endanger life and property in Minnesota, and local resources are inadequate to address the threat. The COVID-19 Peacetime Emergency must therefore continue.” 

As Governor Walz’ handling of the pandemic is described in Reason, “Walz’s coronavirus policies were extremely heavy-handed and restrictive; under his leadership, the state endured the pandemic in a fundamentally anti-libertarian fashion.”  His Executive Orders and multiple restrictions led to “one of the stupidest COVID-19 rules: Diners at restaurants had to wear masks while walking to their table and moving about the establishment but were allowed to go maskless as long as they were eating and drinking… in November and December of 2020, Walz issued and extended orders for restaurants, gyms, and other businesses to shut down. This included outdoor dining service for eating establishments. Over 150 businesses formed the Reopen Minnesota Coalition and urged the governor to relent, but Walz was unmoved.” 

In addition to his draconian Covid restrictions, the governor of Minnesota is best known for his “snitch line,” that is, “[a] hotline set up by Gov. Tim Walz’s administration to monitor compliance with his 2020 stay-at-home order [which] generated thousands of reports from Minnesotans who snitched on their neighbors for things like playing basketball in a park, walking their dogs, and throwing small parties.”  The hotline was “launched in March 2020 and law enforcement continued to monitor it until November, well after the stay-at-home order ended. In October 2020, it was used to alert authorities to a church service that didn’t fit with the governor’s ‘legal requirements.’ This type of complaint was not uncommon.” 

This hot line was not halted until the middle of 2022, long after almost all pandemic restrictions had been lifted. According to Hot Air, “[w]hy did [the snitch line] apparently stop in 2022? Walz faced voters in a re-election campaign, which probably prompted the state to quietly shut down its COVID snitch operations.” 

The use of such a hotline is particularly troubling from a civil liberties standpoint.  Hot Air continues: “If you think the comparison to the Stasi [the East German Secret Police} is overwrought, read the linked 2015 article from Der Speigel. It describes just how the Stasi managed to impose such an effective police state by deputizing everyone to rat each other out. The Stasi understood that they could manipulate slights and grudges between neighbors, co-workers, and even family members to gain leverage over practically anyone and everyone. And it didn’t cost the state a dime to employ most of its subjects as domestic spies.”

In 2023, Walz revealed a certain level of hypocrisy regarding his use of the “snitch line.”  As reported by The Daily Wire, “[t]he hotline flew in the face of the message Gov. Walz sent in 2023 regarding LGBT issues; ‘In Minnesota, we mind our own damn business. We don’t need you in the exam room. We don’t need you telling us who we can love. And we sure don’t need you attacking our teachers, students, and schools.'” 

This hypocrisy continues to the present day; consider these comments made by now-Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Walz in the context of “reproductive freedom”:  “Some of us are old enough to remember when it was Republicans who were talking about freedom. It turns out now what they meant was that the government should be free to invade your doctor’s office. In Minnesota, we respect our neighbors and their personal choices that they make. Even if we wouldn’t make the same choice for ourselves, there’s a golden rule, ‘Mind your own damn business.’” 

The final evidence of Tim Walz’ disdain for the rights and civil liberties of the American people comes during an interview he gave to MSNBC in December of 2022; “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,” he stated. 

Infowars puts this comment in perspective: “if the COVID pandemic taught us anything, it’s that the establishment cannot be trusted to dictate what is and isn’t ‘misinformation,’ and that their covert power-hungry motives guide their censorship efforts.” 

If we are to judge Tim Walz by his actions and words, we are left with a portrait of a cowardly, hypocritical totalitarian, someone who will use the power of the state to trample the rights and liberties of those unlucky enough to reside within his jurisdiction. Someone who will cry “freedom” and “mind your own business” when it comes to leftist causes like abortion and LBGTQ rights, but encourage Minnesotans to inform on their neighbors when Walz’ draconian Executive Orders are violated.   We are also left with the impression of someone who cannot be relied upon to either protect the lives and property of these same Minnesota residents, nor to answer the call when his country (and his fellow soldiers) require his service.

Under these circumstances, Kamala Harris has made the right choice of running mate.  She has managed to pick someone for her Vice President who will fit right in with a government that, if elected, would undoubtedly continue the lawless and repressive activities of the Biden Administration.

Judge John H. Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

The House Judiciary Committee, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a joint interim staff report titled, “The Intelligence Community 51: How CIA Contractors Colluded with The Biden Campaign to Mislead American Voters.”

We provided Part 1 of the text of the report yesterday, and conclude the report today.

In the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to discredit serious allegations about Biden family influence peddling.1 In issuing a public statement using their official titles, these former intelligence officials sought to cast an explosive New York Post story and Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as “Russian disinformation.”2 President Biden even cited to the statement in a televised debate with President Trump shortly before the election to accuse President Trump of leveling false accusations. 3 As a result, the explosive allegations about Biden family misconduct were buried and millions of Americans cast their votes for president without a full set of facts. The 51 former intelligence officials’ Hunter Biden statement was a blatant political operation from the start. It originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Michael Morell. The Committees’ investigation revealed that without this outreach from Blinken, Morell would not have written the statement.4 Indeed, Morell told the Committees that the Blinken phone call “triggered” his intent to write the statement.5 The statement’s drafters were open about the goal of the project: “[W]e think Trump will attack Biden on the issue at this week’s debate”6 and “we want to give the [Vice President] a talking point to use in response.”7 The details as revealed by the Committees to date are concerning enough, but as the Committees have continued to investigate the origins of the Hunter Biden statement, new information has come to light. Through newly obtained internal CIA emails and testimonial evidence, the Committees have uncovered more information on the extent to which the intelligence community was involved in the statement. Specifically, the evidence shows:

High ranking CIA officials, up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the Hunter Biden statement prior to its approval and publication.8 Because several former senior intelligence officials signed the statement, the PCRB sent the draft statement to the CIA’s then-Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis, who said he subsequently informed then-Director Haspel or thenDeputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop that the statement would be published soon.9 Senior CIA leadership had an opportunity at that time to slow down the CIA’s process for reviewing publication submissions and ensure that such an extraordinary statement was properly vetted.10

Some of the statement’s signatories, including Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time of the Hunter Biden statement’s publication. 11 Throughout the course of the Committees’ investigation, the signatories claimed to not have had access to any classified information when asserting that the allegations surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop had “all the hallmarks” of Russian disinformation.12 However, at the time of the statement’s publication, at least two signatories—Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were on the CIA’s payroll as contractors. Due to purported operational concerns, the CIA declined to declassify the entire universe of signatories who were on active contract. In addition, some signatories to the Hunter Biden statement also had special “Green Card” access to the CIA at the time of the statement’s publication, allowing them to gain entry to secure CIA facilities.

After publication of the Hunter Biden statement, CIA employees internally expressed concern about the statement’s politicized content, acknowledging it was not “helpful to the Agency in the long run.”13 At least one employee found it “[i]nteresting to see what was submitted and approved” when discussing media talking points that the statement’s co-author, former Senior Intelligence Service Officer Marc Polymeropoulos, submitted related to the statement.14 When discussing Polymeropoulos’s talking points, another CIA official stated, “It appears [Polymeropoulos] is actively involved in a pro-Biden campaign and may be disclosing classified information in his efforts.”15 The CIA’s internal review board, known as the Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB), determined that Polymeropoulos’s talking points contained classified information that had to be removed prior to publication.16

The new information included in this report, based on new testimony and declassified documents, shows the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community. In the waning days before the 2020 presidential election, 51 intelligence community officials rushed to draft and release a statement using their official titles, presumably to convey access to specialized information unavailable to other Americans. The statement was conceived following a conversation with a senior Biden campaign official and designed explicitly to provide talking points to the Biden campaign to discredit politically damaging allegations. Some of the signatories of the statement were on the CIA payroll at the time as contractors and others had special access to CIA facilities. Even Michael Morell—before the Committees learned of his contract with the CIA—acknowledged, “It’s inappropriate for a currently serving staff officer or contractor to be involved in the political process.”

The infamous Hunter Biden statement had all the hallmarks of an intelligence community influence operation. But rather than carrying it out against our adversaries on foreign soil, this operation was directed at the American people and our democratic processes. It is impossible to know for certain how events would have played out differently if these 51 intelligence community officials never sought to influence the 2020 election. All the Committees may do now is present the facts as known to inform legislative reforms to protect our democratic ideals and prevent future abuse of the intelligence community for partisan political benefit.

The House Judiciary Committee, its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have released a joint interim staff report titled, “The Intelligence Community 51: How CIA Contractors Colluded with The Biden Campaign to Mislead American Voters.”

We provide the text of the report:

The report reveals new information detailing how the highest levels of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), up to and including then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, were made aware of the “Public Statement on the Hunter Biden Emails” by 51 former intelligence officials prior to its approval and publication. The report reveals important new facts, such as how some of the statement’s signatories, including former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell, were on active contract with the CIA at the time they issued the Hunter Biden statement to discredit damaging allegations about Biden family influence peddling just weeks before the 2020 presidential election.

“We knew that the rushed statement from the 51 former intelligence officials was a political maneuver between the Biden campaign and the intelligence community. Now with this interim report, we reveal how officials at the highest levels of the CIA were aware of the statement and CIA employees knew that several of the so-called former officials were on active contract with the CIA. The report underscores the risks posed by a weaponized federal government,” said Chairman Jim Jordan.

“The House Intelligence Committee’s work provided us with solid direct evidence that in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials coordinated with the Biden campaign to falsely cast doubt on an explosive New York Post story and label Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as ‘Russian disinformation.’ The Committee worked to obtain classified documents from the CIA, including emails, and fought to include evidence of these materials in our report,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner.

BACKGROUND:

On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a report detailing how Hunter Biden used the position and influence of his father, now-President Joe Biden, for personal gain with the apparent awareness of President Biden. Five days later, on October 19, 2020, 51 former intelligence officials signed on to a public statement that stated that the Hunter Biden laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” in an attempt to discredit the New York Post’s reporting.
 
Since April 2022—and renewed in January 2023, when Republicans resumed control of the House of Representatives—the Committees have been conducting oversight into the origins of this statement. The Committees wrote to all 51 former officials requesting relevant documents and testimony.

The Committees’ first joint interim staff report revealed how the now-infamous and discredited Hunter Biden statement originated with a call from top Biden campaign official—and now Secretary of State—Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell to provide talking points and cover for the Biden campaign to discredit serious allegations about the Biden family’s influence peddling. Morell’s testimony also exposed that the goal of the statement was to aid President Biden in the final debate of the 2020 presidential campaign.

NEW INFORMATION:

The highest officials within the CIA were aware of the statement prior to its publication. CIA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) Andrew Makridis testified that he informed Director Gina Haspel or Deputy Director Vaughn Frederick Bishop about its impending release. This sequence of events suggests that senior CIA leadership had ample opportunity to assess the validity of the statement’s claims. Furthermore, the COO’s office appeared to signal approval of the statement in a move that departed from standard Prepublication Classification Review Board (PCRB) protocols.

Additionally, some of the statement’s signatories were on active contract with the CIA at the time they issued the statement to discredit damaging allegations about Biden family influence peddling. Despite claiming they lacked access to classified information at the time, at least two signatories—Michael Morell and former CIA Inspector General David Buckley—were actively working for the CIA as contractors. This revelation raises concerns that these officials may have abused their positions to expedite the statement’s approval and may have been earning taxpayer dollars while they did it.

Furthermore, officials within the CIA recognized at the time that the Hunter Biden statement was political and would hurt the Agency. The signatories’ decision to leverage their former intelligence community titles to promote a narrative about foreign election interference improperly embroiled the Agency in domestic politics. This report underscores the potential dangers of a politicized intelligence community.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Vice President Harris gave a vacuous, vapid acceptance speech that was almost wholly devoid of substance. She attempted to portray herself as a moderate, when in fact she has governed, through five years in the senate and almost four years as vice president, as an extreme radical. Indeed, she was designated, in 2019, as the most liberal senator, even more so than Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Ignoring the fact that Democrats have controlled the White House the past four years and twelve of the past sixteen years, she blamed Donald Trump for all the nations ills.  The fact that the media gushed about the speech which was, in essence, an insult to the American people’s ability to remember recent events, is a searing indictment of the biased mainstream news establishment.

The pretension that Trump is the incumbent and she is the challenger was a staple throughout the convention, as was the repeated statements that the GOP sought to ban all abortions.  Add to that the absurd claim that Trump endorses Project 2025, which he has repeatedly and vehemently criticized. As has been widely reported, “Trump said in a Truth Social post he has ‘no idea who is behind’ Project 2025, adding he disagrees with some of the project’s proposals for the next GOP administration and ‘some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.’” There is nothing vague about that comment. The fact that shameless reporters refused to comment on the obvious falsehoods uttered throughout the four days in Chicago is despicable.

Harris alleged that she would keep America safe. How? By voting against adequate military budgets, as she has throughout her career? She pledged to secure the border. Really? As border czar, she presided over the largest influx of illegal immigrants in U.S. history.

There was barely any mention of the incongruity of her comments. 

Similarly, much was made of how Barack Obama gave a great speech.  Which part? When he made references to the penis size of the Republican candidate? Laughably, the former president exclaimed that “Our politics have become so polarized these days that all of us across the political spectrum seem so quick to assume the worst in others unless they agree with us on every single issue.” How did they get so polarized? Could it be the result of the false charges, commenced during the Obama presidency and extended for years, about “Russian collusion” that has been conclusively proven to be completely false? Or, perhaps, the charges levied against him when he sought to research the international corruption of Joe Biden?

Michelle Obama continued her tradition of bitterness and lies. Keep in mind that she is the woman who exclaimed that she was “never proud of her country” until they elected her husband President.  At the convention, she said that Trump was “Doubling down on ugly, misogynistic, racist lies as a substitute for real ideas and solutions that will actually make people’s lives better.” Trump’s record on black employment was one of the best in history. She also seems to have forgotten that In both 1998 and 1999, Trump was an honored guest at the annual Wall Street Conference hosted by the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, Jesse Jackson’ DC-based “multi-racial, multi-issue, progressive, international membership organization fighting for social change.”

A convention is the perfect time to layout the goals a presidential candidate seeks to implement, and the way they will be achieved.  That was completely missing. All that was provided was a denial of all that Harris has done and has stood for in the past. In that sense, the four day session was a complete failure, a failure that has gone wholly unreported by most of the media.

Photo: Pixabay

The House Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and Committee on the Judiciary released a report on the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden, finding he committed impeachable offenses. The report details evidence to establish President Biden abused his office and violated his oaths of office as Vice President by engaging in a conspiracy to peddle influence to enrich his family. As President, Joe Biden and the Biden-Harris Administration obstructed the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry and the criminal investigation of President Biden’s son.       These are key findings from the impeachment inquiry report. From 2014 to the present, as part of a conspiracy to monetize Joe Biden’s office of public trust to enrich the Biden family, Biden family members and their associates received over $27 million from foreign individuals or entities. In order to obscure the source of these funds, the Biden family and their associates set up shell companies to conceal these payments from scrutiny. The Biden family used proceeds from these business activities to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars to Joe Biden—including thousands of dollars that are directly traceable to China. While Jim Biden claimed he gave this money to Joe Biden to repay personal loans, Jim Biden did not provide any evidence to support this claim. The Biden family’s receipt of millions of dollars required Joe Biden’s knowing participation in this conspiracy, including while he served as Vice President. Joe Biden used his status as Vice President to garner favorable outcomes for his son’s and his business partners’ foreign business dealings. Witnesses acknowledged that Hunter Biden involved Vice President Biden in many of his business dealings with Russian, Romanian, Chinese, Kazakhstani, and Ukrainian individuals and companies.Then-Vice President Biden met or spoke with nearly every one of the Biden family’s foreign business associates, including those from Ukraine, China, Russia, and Kazakhstan. As a result, the Biden family has received millions of dollars from these foreign entities.  The Biden family leveraged Joe Biden’s positions of public trust to obtain over $8 million in loans from Democratic benefactors. Millions of dollars in loans have not been repaid and the paperwork supporting many of the loans does not exist and has not been produced to the Committees. This raises serious questions about whether these funds were provided as gifts disguised as loans.Under the Biden Administration, the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) afforded special treatment to President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.Several witnesses acknowledged the delicate approach used during the Hunter Biden case, describing the investigation as “sensitive” or “significant.” Evidence shows that Department officials slow-walked the investigation, informed defense counsel of future investigative actions, prevented line investigators from taking otherwise ordinary investigative steps, and allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious felony charges. These unusual—and oftentimes in the view of witnesses, unprecedented—tactics conflicted with standard operating procedures and ultimately had the effect of benefiting Hunter Biden. The Biden Justice Department misled Congress about the independence of law enforcement entities in the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden. Biden Administration political appointees exercised significant oversight and control over the investigation of the President’s son. Witnesses described how U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware and now-Special Counsel David Weiss, who oversaw the investigation and prosecution of Hunter Biden, had to seek (1) agreement from other U.S. Attorneys to bring cases in a district geographically distinct from his own and (2) approval from the Biden Justice Department’s Tax Division to bring specific charges or take investigative actions against Hunter Biden. Despite the clear conflict of interest, Weiss was only afforded special counsel status after the investigation came under congressional scrutiny.The White House has obstructed the Committees’ impeachment inquiry by withholding key documents and witnesses. The White House has impeded the Committees’ investigation of President Biden’s unlawful retention of classified documents, by refusing to make relevant witnesses available for interviews and by erroneously asserting executive privilege over audio recordings from Special Counsel Hur’s interviews with President Biden. In addition, the White House is preventing the National Archives from turning over documents that are material to the Committees’ inquiry.

We present part 2 of a major report on the vulnerability of American forces to attacks by China.

Chairman John Moolenaar and.Senator Marco Rubio stated that in order to complement active defenses and strengthen our bases, we must invest in “passive defenses,” like hardened aircraft shelters and underground bunkers, dispersal of forces across both within a base and across multiple bases, redundant logistical facilities, and rapid runway repair capabilities.

They note that Robust passive defenses can help minimize the damage of missile attacks by increasing our forces’ ability to withstand strikes, recover quickly, and effectively continue operations.

 The U.S. Air Force has commendably incorporated many of the core tenets of passive defense into its doctrine of “Agile Combat Employment” (ACE). The concept emphasizes increasing survivability of forces through dispersal of teams to operate in a “hub-and-spoke” manner. 8 Concepts such as ACE should be expanded upon and prioritized to harden bases against the Chinese threat, as Secretary Kendall has stated.9 Yet, as explained below, it is apparent that the Pentagon is not urgently pursuing needed passive defenses. Hardened Aircraft Shelters Ongoing research by Thomas Shugart and Timothy A. Walton, analysts associated with the Center for a New American Security and Hudson Institute, respectively, paints a troubling picture of U.S. efforts to strengthen bases through the construction of hardened aircraft shelters.

According to preliminary information provided by Shugart and Walton, the difference between the number of hardened aircraft shelters being built by China and the United States is staggering.10 Despite the grave threat to U.S. bases described above, over the last decade, it is China, not the United States, that has built more than 400 hardened aircraft shelters. During the same period, the United States built only twenty-two additional hardened shelters in the region, on U.S. bases in Japan and South Korea. Notably, there are no hardened aircraft shelters in Guam or CNMI. While hardened aircraft shelters do not provide complete protection from missile attacks, they do offer significantly more protection against submunitions than expedient shelters (relocatable steel shelters). They would also force China to use more force to destroy each aircraft, thereby increasing the resources required to attack our forces and, in turn, the survivability of our valuable air assets.12 Constructing hardened shelters for all our air assets may not be economically feasible or tactically sensible, but the fact that the number of such shelters on U.S. bases in the region has barely changed over a decade is deeply troubling.

Base Resilience Construction The limited investment into hardened aircraft shelters is a symptom of a broader problem within the DoD: we are spending hardly any money on military construction to improve base resilience in the Indo-Pacific. In FY 2024, the Pentagon will spend approximately $15.7 billion on military construction projects worldwide. 13 Of the total, DoD will spend below 2 percent on base resilience projects in the region, less than what it spent on such projects in 2023. According to the 2024 Military Construction Appropriations Act, the Pentagon will spend $136 million on the construction of an aircraft parking ramp and aerial port facility in Guam. In CNMI, the Air Force will spend $78 million on airfield development and fuel tanks. In the Philippines, DoD will spend $35 million on an airfield development project at Basa Air Base. 14 There appear to be no projects dedicated to base hardening for the entire region as part of FY24 funding.

Meanwhile, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command has identified $11 billion in priorities that were “unfunded” by the President’s Budget Request for FY25, including $3.3 billion in military construction. 15 The size and nature of the unfunded priorities reflect a profound lack of seriousness in strengthening the U.S. bases closest to China and thus most vulnerable to Chinese strikes. If our bases in the Indo-Pacific lack the resilience to survive attacks and continue operating, our ability to deter China and respond quickly in the Taiwan Strait will be greatly diminished. It is essential that budget requests provided to Congress accurately reflect what our forces will need to deter and, if needed, defeat any threats against U.S. personnel.

China’s extraordinary aggression makes the protection of American troops and weaponry an urgent priority.  The Congressional Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party reports that this is not being done.  We present their report.

In an urgent letter to Air Force and Navy leaders, Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and colleagues have expressed deep concerns that U.S. military bases may not be able to defend against growing Chinese military threats. In the letter, the lawmakers highlight preliminary research showing that over the past decade, China built more than 400 hardened aircraft shelters while the United States built just 22 in the Indo-Pacific.

 Hardened aircraft shelters are reinforced hangars used to protect military aircraft and will be critical as the United States looks to safeguard its assets in the Indo-Pacific.

 The lawmakers identified shortcomings in DoD military construction priorities and note that the United States spends hardly any money on base resilience military construction projects in the Indo-Pacific at the very moment China is undergoing one of the most rapid military buildups in history. They also call attention to an onerous DoD regulation that is significantly delaying critical construction projects and adversely affecting U.S. military posture in the region.

 The lawmakers requested that the Pentagon respond to the following questions:

 What steps have you taken to incorporate and enhance passive defenses to protect our bases and forces in the Indo-Pacific, including in Alaska, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Minor Outlying Islands, and allied and partner territory?

 What plans do you have to create hardened aircraft shelters, underground bunkers, and other hardened facilities to protect aircraft, equipment, and forces operating out of U.S. bases in the Indo-Pacific?

 What additional hardened infrastructure, reconstitution, camouflage, concealment, and deception projects and programs could enhance the passive defenses of U.S. critical assets and forces in the Indo-Pacific?

 Do you plan to request additional funding for base resilience construction projects, including hardened aircraft shelters, underground bunkers, and dispersed and/or redundant facilities? If so, please explain.

 Has the Department assessed options to increase efficiency and speed for executing military construction so that such critical projects do not take years to complete?

 Will you grant the Joint Region Marianas an exemption from following “Munitions and Explosives of Concern” procedures for military construction?

Will you implement “Recognize, Retreat, Report” procedures as the baseline for military construction throughout the Indo-Pacific?

They note that while the Pentagon accurately classified the PRC as the “pacing challenge,” why does the Department’s budget not reflect its rhetoric on the PRC?  

 The lawmakers warned that with its current strike capabilities, China can attack all U.S. bases in the region, targeting U.S. service members from Okinawa to those on U.S. territories of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

 In fact, unclassified analysis suggests China has enough weapons to overwhelm our air and missile defenses protecting those bases.1 Strikes on U.S. bases could immobilize vital air assets, disrupt logistical chains, and significantly weaken our ability to respond in a conflict. Passive defenses, such as hardened aircraft shelters and dispersal of forces, may offer the most cost-effective way of strengthening our bases and improving their resilience.

They expressed deep concern over the alarming lack of urgency by the Department of Defense (DoD) in adopting such defensive measures. U.S. bases in the region have almost no hardened aircraft shelters compared to Chinese military bases. In addition, a DoD regulation involving World War II-era munitions is substantially delaying and driving up the costs of construction projects in Guam and CNMI aimed at building a more resilient posture for our forces to withstand Chinese attacks and continue operations.

According to members of the Select Committee, “The result is that critical U.S. air assets are highly vulnerable to Chinese strikes. Unsurprisingly, in recent war games simulating a conflict with China over Taiwan, 90 percent of U.S. aircraft losses occurred on the ground, rather than from air combat.

They note that “While active defenses such as air and missile defense systems are an important part of base and force protection, their high cost and limited numbers mean the U.S. will not be able to deploy enough of them to fully protect our bases.

The Report concludes tomorrow